The FB-22 (sometimes called the Strike Raptor) is a
proposed
United States Air Force
bomber aircraft, derived from the F-22
Raptor and intended to replace the
F-15E Strike Eagle. It would precede a next-generation strike aircraft
entering service after 2037. Former
Secretary of the Air Force James
Roche is said to be one of its strongest proponents.

Design And Development

Background

In early 2002,
Lockheed Martin began briefing the US Air Force on a modified bomber
version of the F-22 Raptor fighter, featuring a
delta
wing, longer body and greater range and payload. This company-funded
study of the FB-22, conducted during 2002, was an internally generated,
proprietary study into the feasibility of making a derivative of the F-22.
The FB-22
medium bomber is based on existing and planned capabilities of the F-22
fighter, a heritage that would limit development costs should the idea go
into production. The medium bomber version of the F-22 would provide a
relatively low cost and low risk approach for development of a high speed
strike aircraft to carry a sufficient load to attack mobile targets. The
FB-22 would act as a regional bomber, a role previously covered by the
General Dynamics F-111.

Click on Picture to enlarge

A FB-22 concept image next to a real F-22

The FB-22 differs from the original F-22 design significantly. A
lengthened fuselage and larger delta
wing provide greater fuel capacity for greater range, of some 1,600
miles, compared with the F-22's 600 miles. This also allows room for a
larger internal weapons bay, better suiting long range attack missions and
improved
stealth. A possible change to the
General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 or the new
F135 engines (developed for the new
F-35) would allow for a higher top-speed. One early FB-22 concept
featured no tailplanes. Unlike the similar-looking
X-44
MANTA, the FB-22 would rely on wing control surfaces and would likely
have fixed engine nozzles as opposed to the variable geometry ‘thrust
vectoring’ nozzles which enhance the F-22's maneuverability. The initial
design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), which weigh only 250 pounds. This was later
increased to 30 SDBs. Using
Global Positioning System guidance, the small bomb could be as lethal as
a 2,000-pound bomb. An F-22 would carry eight SDBs.

Related research is currently being undertaken to develop a stealth
ordnance pod and
hardpoints. This would allow the F-22, and any aircraft it spawns, to
carry a far greater amount of ordnance than the internal bays alone, while
still allowing the craft to maintain its stealth characteristics. These pods
are intended to use stealth shaping, and carry ordnance internally. Opening
to release the munitions, then discarding along with the hardpoints if the
situation requires. Because of the work already done on the F-22, developing
the FB-22 might cost about $5 billion to $7 billion – a fraction of the
price for starting a bomber from scratch.

The Interim Bomber

The FB-22 is considered an entrant to a new USAF proposal for an
interim bomber with strategic capabilities to become operational by
2018.[1]
In order to achieve such an ambitious EIS date, an aircraft based on an
already proven platform (such as the FB-22) may be desired.[2]
The 2018 bomber will be an interim bomber to a future bomber to be fielded
by 2037.

However, it appears the FB-22 has been canceled in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review, in lieu of a long range bomber with a much
greater range than the FB-22.[3][4]

Wikipedia

The FB-22 Bomber

Click on Picture to enlarge

The FB-22 is a concept on the shelf for future consideration. It
will actually cost some money to develop the FB-22 and right now it's
a concept. It's a concept that helps stretch minds. Air Force
Secretary James G. Roche is the father of this concept and he has a
model of this concept on his desk. It looks very much like an F-22. It
takes advantage of all of the development work that has been done on
the F/A-22. It is two seats. It is a bit larger. It retains all of its
super cruise characteristics. It is not quite as high G as the F/A-22
but it is still a maneuverable airplane. And where the F/A-22 will
carry eight small diameter bombs internally, the FB-22 would carry 30
small diameter bombs internally with a range approximately two and a
half times that of the F/A-22.

In early 2002 Lockheed Martin began briefing the Air Force on a
modified bomber version of the F-22 Raptor fighter, featuring a delta
wing, longer body and greater range and payload. This company-funded
study of the FB-22, conducted during 2002, was an internally
generated, internally funded proprietary study into the feasibility of
making a derivative of the F-22. The FB-22 medium bomber is based on
existing and planned capabilities of the Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter,
a heritage that would limit development costs should the idea go into
production. The medium bomber version of the F-22 would provide a
relatively low cost and low risk approach for development of a high
speed strike aircraft to carry a sufficient load to attack mobile
targets.

Click on Picture to enlarge

In a series or articles by Bill Sweetman for "Jane's Defense
Weekly" and "Popular Science," the FB-22 s described as a tailless
delta variant of the F-22. Yaw control would be provided by split
flaps, or "decelerons" on the wings, while roll would be controlled by
movable wingtips.

In a bomber version, the fuselage would be longer and the wings far
larger to give the bomber greater range – more than 1,600 miles,
compared with the F-22's 600-plus – and bomb-carrying capacity. The
FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take over some missions
for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and B-1. The initial design
envisioned a plane that could carry 24 Small Diameter Bombs, which
weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global Positioning System guidance, the
small bomb would be as lethal as a 2,000-pound bomb. A regular F/A-22
would carry eight Small Diameter Bombs. An FB-22 would carry 30.

The biggest difference between the F-22 and the FB-22 is the wing,
which would be very close to a delta wing. It is not exactly a delta,
but a much bigger wing, which would increase the amount of space that
could carry bombs. The longer, thicker delta wing would enable the
FB-22 to carry up to 80 percent more fuel than the F-22, giving it a
correspondingly greater range.

Click on Picture to enlarge

To produce an FB-22, the basic F-22 would need airframe
modifications for a larger weapons payload and greater fuel capacity,
bringing the maximum takeoff weight to over 42 tons. The FB-22's
fuselage would need to be about 10 feet longer than that of the F-22
to make room for a larger weapons bay. The FB-22 might dispense with
the F-22's twin horizontal stabilizers and vertical tails. If so, the
the plane's overall length wouldn't be much different from the F-22's.
Like the B-2, the FB-22 would carry two pilots, since missions could
last more than 12 hours.

Rather than using the F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, the
FB-22 is likely to have either the new F135, which was developed from
the F119 to power the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or the rival
General Electric F136. In either event, the FB-22 would have greater
speed than the B-1B, the fastest US bomber.

Because of the work already done on the F-22, developing the FB-22
might cost about $5 billion to $7 billion – a fraction of the price
for starting a bomber from scratch. FB-22 flights could begin by 2013.
Starting a second final assembly line for the FB-22 at Boeing is under
consideration, since Boeing makes the F-22's wings.

The F-22 Raptor As
A Bomber

The FB-22 is a leading candidate to fulfill USAF’s need for an “interim
bomber.”

Air Force Magazine

January 2005, Vol. 88, No. 1

By John A. Tirpak,
Executive Editor

Click on Picture to enlarge

For more than two years, the Air Force has been contemplating the
development and fielding of a regional bomber variant of its
soon-to-be-operational F/A-22 stealth fighter. This “FB-22” is now
considered a leading contender to fill a 15-year technological gap between
today’s fleet of long-range strike aircraft and a still-undefined next
generation system, which might incorporate hypersonic or other futuristic
technologies.

Since it was unveiled in 2002, the FB-22 concept has evolved to where
it would likely have most—though not all—of the Air Force’s desired
attributes for a regional bomber and do so at an acceptable cost.

Skeptics question whether the system could be delivered within the
desired time frame. Even Lockheed Martin, which would adapt its F/A-22
design, cautions that the timing is tight, and a go-ahead would have to be
received by the end of this year to achieve the target in-service date of
2015. However, the company believes that, given a quick green light, it
can get the airplane—which it sees as the lowest-risk, best value
near-term option—on the ramp on time.

The FB-22 is shown above in
an artist’s conception. Built around a standard F/A-22, its bigger
wings and adapted engines triple the Raptor’s range, while stealthy
weapons-carrying wing pods and a modified bomb bay boost loadout. The
variant is shown launching a Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.
(Lockheed Martin artist’s concept)

The Air Force’s now-defunct Bomber Roadmap envisioned waiting until
the late 2030s for a next generation capability (see “Long Arm of the Air
Force,” October 2002, p. 28). For years, USAF forecast a long hiatus in
bomber acquisition, arguing that its existing fleet of B-1B, B-2, and B-52
aircraft, with appropriate modifications and new ordnance, could do the
long-range strike job until a new system—possibly orbital, possibly
hypersonic—could be acquired.

Congress Takes a Hand

Congress balked, however, at the notion that the US would go some 30
years without producing a new bomber, especially when the value of
long-range and long loiter time capabilities seemed to be proved daily
during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Money was inserted in the
Fiscal 2004 defense bill to explore nearer-term possibilities for
long-range strike.

The Air Force took a fresh look at the mission, in light of both the
technological state of the art and the emerging types of missions needed
for the Global War on Terror. It affirmed that the “technological leap” it
wanted in a new long-range system was not coming any sooner than had been
previously forecast. In that sense, nothing had changed.

“On the other hand, as the Global War on Terror continues to evolve,
we get a better sense of where we are moving ... in the future,” said Maj.
Gen. Stephen M. Goldfein, who until October was USAF’s director of
operational capability requirements and is now commander of USAF’s Air
Warfare Center at Nellis AFB, Nev.

He said it has become “obvious” that to hold targets at risk and
meet the Pentagon’s capability objectives, the Air Force cannot wait until
the major transformational leap expected in the 2020s.

The Air Force now envisions delivering powerful close support to
ground forces that may often be deep behind enemy lines, enveloped in the
heart of an enemy’s air defense system. To deliver that promised punch,
the Air Force will need a system with long range, a high degree of
stealth, precision strike capability, and the ability to defend itself
against enemy fighters, as well as the capacity to serve as a forward node
in a network of intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance systems.

In the future, that capability will likely be provided by a “system
of systems,” Goldfein said. The portfolio could include hypersonic cruise
missiles, unmanned combat aircraft, and orbital strike systems, as well as
the emerging F/A-22 and F-35 fighters and today’s aircraft.

However, “we’re going to have a bridge between where we are and
where we might end up,” Goldfein said.

Now in agreement with Congress on the need, the Air Force in April
released a request for information to industry, seeking ideas for systems
that could provide a rapid-action, long-range strike capability by 2015.

The responses ranged from conventionally tipped intercontinental
ballistic missiles to all-new big bombers (see “Long-Range Strike in a
Hurry,” November 2004, p. 26). The FB-22 was among the ideas Lockheed
Martin offered to the Air Force.

The service accepted the concepts and discussed them with the
various companies, but has not yet specified how it will proceed. However,
after receiving the pitch from Lockheed, it asked for follow-up briefings
on how the company would meet performance and cost targets quoted in its
response to the RFI. Lockheed briefed the Air Force F/A-22 Integrated
Product Team on those details in early November.

The new FB-22 differs markedly from the one originally conceived,
according to John E. Perrigo, senior manager of combat air systems for
Lockheed Martin’s business development branch. One major change is that it
will be stealthier than the F/A-22.

“This thing will have improved stealth capabilities over any other
airplane ever built,” Perrigo said. The FB-22 will incorporate all the
advances in low observable or stealth technology that have come since the
F/A-22 design was set, roughly 12 years ago. Perrigo claimed that the
FB-22 will be even stealthier than the B-2 bomber.

“It can go places other airplanes can’t go. Even the B-2 can’t go
back there [far behind enemy lines] and survive and ... do global
persistent attack.”

“More Stealthy”

Compared to the F/A-22, the FB-22 will be “more stealthy, and it
needs to be, because it’s going to operate in an environment where the
F/A-22 may not. ... It could be down in very direct support of forces on
the ground—we see that as one of its prime missions.”

The FB-22 would also take advantage of a very significant
breakthrough: the ability to carry stores external to the airplane but
still do so in a stealthy way. On the FB-22, this takes the form of what
Lockheed calls a “wing weapons bay” but which resembles a faceted pod.

The exact shape of the container is classified, and published
artist’s concepts will likely be intentionally inaccurate “for years,”
Perrigo said, but the under-wing bay can substantially add to the payload
of the FB-22.

Until recently, it was believed that an aircraft could only be
stealthy if it carried its weapons internally in its fuselage. The
development of the stealthy pod—as well as a “stealth pylon” on which
stealthy missiles can be carried—has changed that equation.

“We used to say that had to be internal, but we don’t anymore,”
Perrigo said. He called it “low observable carriage.”

Lockheed Martin has done
preliminary work on a tailless version of the F/A-22. Although this
X-44 concept has not flown, USAF will consider such a configuration
for the FB-22, if costs stay within bounds. (Artist’s concept by Erik
Simonsen)

Lockheed offered the Air Force six different versions of the FB-22,
each one tuned to a particular set of requirements and targets. This was
necessary because targets, payload, and range have yet to be defined and
are still subject to trade-offs with other platforms and munitions.

However, the most likely version will feature the fuselage of the
“basic” F/A-22 with few modifications. Lockheed discovered that
lengthening the fuselage immediately added a 25 to 30 percent cost penalty
in weight, materials, and development, Perrigo said. Instead of making the
airplane longer, a very wide, fuel-carrying “wet” wing will be added, with
capability for two to four of the under-wing weapons bays. The wing would
be three times the size of that on the F/A-22.
With the additional internal fuel, the FB-22 could have a combat radius of
about 1,800 nautical miles—more than triple that of the F/A-22.

While the F/A-22 can carry eight 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs for
precision attack, the FB-22 would be able to carry at least 35. It could
reach that number by using not only the under-wing weapons bays but also
the side weapons bays used for AIM-9 short-range air-to-air missiles on
the basic Raptor, as well as a modified main weapons bay.

Bigger Bombs

Moreover, the FB-22 would be able to carry larger weapons. The basic
Raptor is limited to bombs of no more than 1,000 pounds, but the FB-22
could carry any ordnance up to and including a 5,000-pound bunker buster,
Perrigo claimed. Two 2,000-pound bombs could be carried internally in the
fuselage, thanks to a bumped-out weapons bay door, he said, and two
2,000-pound bombs could be carried in each wing bay, in tandem.

Electro-optical systems will be added that could permit
man-in-the-loop terminal guidance of weapons.

To save cost, the aircraft would likely not use thrust-vectoring,
two-dimensional nozzles, as on the basic Raptor. However, Lockheed is
working with Pratt & Whitney to offer an improved F119 engine that will
deliver more power and longer range. The new engine would not be tuned to
“supercruise”—flying at supersonic speed without afterburner—but would be
able to dash at supersonic speed.

All told, the FB-22 would be able to carry 15,000 pounds of weapons
stealthily and up to 30,000 pounds of ordnance when stealth is not
necessary.

One area still in question is the Raptor’s vertical tails. Lockheed
is exploring whether they are even necessary. While removing them might
save money on materials and maintenance, there would be additional cost in
flight-control computer code. Lockheed is continuing with trade studies to
find the optimum configuration, from the perspective of cost. Lockheed has
done some work on a tailless F/A-22 concept called the X-44.

The FB-22 (in an artist’s
conception) was not stretched to increase commonality with the
standard Raptor. Life cycle savings alone, compared to producing an
entirely new aircraft, could amount to $10 billion over the program’s
life. (Lockheed Martin artist’s concept)

“Should the customer decide that they want to take this ... as far
as they can ... aerodynamically, that body of work is certainly available
to us,” Perrigo noted.

James G. Roche, outgoing Secretary of the Air Force, and Gen. John
P. Jumper, the Chief of Staff, both have said that they envision the
“bridge” strike aircraft as not only being very long-legged and stealthy
but able to defend itself against enemy fighters. The FB-22 would retain
capability to carry at least two AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided missiles on
every mission and will be able to maneuver at six Gs.

What would not have to be developed for the FB-22 as now configured
would be a dramatically new set of flight-control laws and avionics,
frequently the most expensive aspect of a new weapons system. It was the
avionics that proved to be the pacing factor on the F/A-22.

Roche told Air Force Magazine that, while no decision has been made
to proceed with an FB-22, the idea has great appeal versus going to a
new-start program costing as much as $40 billion.
The concept is “a heck of a lot better than designing from scratch,” Roche
said.

The avionics—especially the radar, the sensor fusion, the
network-centric features, and the electronic warfare equipment—is “all
done. That’s all done,” Roche said.

He also believes that the FB-22—or, as he described it, “an
FB-22-like thing” to avoid implying that it is already the Air Force’s
preferred option—could indeed be developed and fielded “in less than a
decade.”

Wing Changes

The key physical changes, he said, will have to do with the wing.
More expense would accrue if the “outer mold line changes,” but Lockheed
is planning to retain the F/A-22 fuselage, so much of that cost could be
avoided.

Other industry experts are not so sure. George K. Muellner, head of
Boeing’s Air Force projects division and a former top uniformed USAF
acquisition official, said the scope of work may not be as easy as a
re-wing job.

It is “not a simple task” to convert the F/A-22 to an FB-22, he
said.

Boeing is a partner with Lockheed on the F/A-22 and builds the
aircraft’s wings and much of its aft fuselage. It has been suggested by
some in Congress and industry that Boeing, with long experience in
bombers, might take the lead on an FB-22 program, both to take advantage
of its corporate knowledge and to spread some of the combat aircraft work
around the industry. (After the F-15 ends production, Lockheed alone will
be building strike aircraft for the Air Force.)
“Could we build it? Sure,” said Muellner. “Could Boeing take the lead?
Sure,” he added.

Operating behind enemy lines,
the FB-22 would deliver air support to dispersed ground forces and
special operations forces. It could carry more than 35 Small Diameter
Bombs, shown here in a B-2 weapons bay. (Boeing photo)

He insisted, however, that the FB-22 is “not a quick solution” to
the interim strike problem, and “we shouldn’t kid ourselves” that such a
variant project would be anything other than “difficult.”

In obtaining stealth, shaping of the aircraft is the key, Muellner
said. To be stealthy, an airplane’s angles have to match up in such a way
as to present minimal radar reflection in certain directions. The much
larger wing of the FB-22, he said, would have a different angle of sweep,
“optimized for long range.”

“It would not be like starting from scratch,” but the technical
challenges would be formidable, Muellner asserted. He estimated that it
might take until “2025, maybe a little earlier” to field such a
capability, by which time the longer-term solution might be at hand. He
based his estimate on the time it took to develop the B-2 and the F/A-22,
taking into account both the technical difficulties as well as the funding
ups and downs suffered by each of those programs.

“The question becomes, What do you really want?” Muellner said. He
noted that the Defense Science Board last year determined that the Air
Force “probably has adequate platforms ... for the next 10 to 15 years,”
given new munitions to keep up with requirements.

Perrigo, however, said that Lockheed is convinced that the
re-winging will not disrupt the stealthy aspects of the aircraft and that
the company has done considerable wind-tunnel work to satisfy itself that
the larger wing will be stable and strong enough, given a few
reinforcements at certain stress “hot spots.” He also noted that Boeing,
while a partner on the F/A-22, is also the prime contractor for the B-1B
and B-52 and stands most to benefit from the Air Force’s reliance on those
airplanes for long-range strike.

Two in the Cockpit

Lockheed believes the Air Force will want a two-seat FB-22. The
second seat would accommodate a second pilot, who could relieve the front
seater on long missions—the aircraft could be flying 15 hours or more—or
take up additional duties with targeting. Lockheed did basic work on a
two-seat F/A-22 early in the program, before the second-seat option was
canceled to save money, so elaborate stealth refinement of an extended
forward fuselage will not be necessary.

Indeed, except for the “60-inch plug” needed for the second crew
station, the forward fuselage will not change, Perrigo said. The plug will
also provide new room for expanded avionics or fuel. However, the aircraft
will not carry a gun.

While Lockheed declined to be specific about the cost of an FB-22
program—the figures are proprietary—Perrigo asserted that the FB-22 could
be had for less than twice the cost of an F/A-22.

He also said, “We’re one-fourth or less of any new-start program”
and estimated that a new bomber program could cost $30 billion to $40
billion.

The FB-22 could use the
avionics and upgrades developed for the F/A-22—an enormous savings of
time and money. Above, an F/A-22 finishes up operational testing with
an F-16C chase airplane over Nellis AFB, Nev. (USAF photo by TSgt.
Kevin J. Gruenwald)

Because of commonality with the basic Raptor and its engines,
Lockheed believes that the FB-22 would represent a savings of “over $10
billion, over a 20-year period, in logistics costs alone,” Perrigo
maintained. That savings would be over and above the cost avoidance of a
new-start aircraft.

The Air Force has asked for cost information given a 150-aircraft
fleet, or about two wings’ worth of aircraft.

Given a go-ahead in 2005, Perrigo said that Lockheed could get a
prototype flying in short order, especially if the Air Force would let the
company use an engineering and manufacturing development F/A-22 aircraft
as a test airplane. Several test Raptors will not be converted for
operational use and could be the basis for a concept demonstrator, should
the service wish further risk reduction.

The Computer Version

At the Air Force Association’s national conference in September,
Roche told reporters that the service has performed computer modeling and
simulation of a notional medium-range bomber.

The aircraft, he said, had “the following characteristics. ... One
is, it goes equal to or farther than the B-2, so, say 2,500 miles; it has
the capability to fight so as to put stealth in the daytime; ... it
probably goes fast when you want it to go fast and can fight back when it
has to fight back.” The notional aircraft would also have “highly
accurate” munitions, able to attack deeply buried or hardened targets, and
be able to “sense and to attack moving targets.” It would be able to
support the Air Force’s intention to support US ground forces deep behind
enemy lines and loiter in the battle area.

“Some number of those—to augment the existing long-range strike
fleet and as a transition to something [further out]—seemed to make
sense,” Roche said. Monies appropriated by Congress to pursue a long-range
strike aircraft “are to flesh that out and start to get concepts that fit
along those lines.”

The FB-22 would fulfill all of those attributes except the range.
The FB-22, at 1,800 miles combat radius, would be 700 miles short of the
desired operating range. The only stealthy aircraft today to meet the
2,500-mile target is the B-2, which is very large, with capacious fuel
tanks and extremely benign aerodynamics.

With missions of more than 15
hours, the FB-22 likely would have a two-pilot cockpit. The second
pilot could spell the front seater and handle weapons management, as
well as other missions. (Lockheed Martin artist’s concept)

Perrigo said the 2,500-mile target is not out of the question, but
would require substantially more work than the best value option Lockheed
feels meets the broadest part of the Air Force requirement. “We don’t want
to challenge ourselves too much because cost and value is clearly on the
customer’s mind,” he added. Still, “we haven’t eliminated anything. ... If
money’s no problem, we can do it.” However, achieving it by 2015 would be
less certain, he said.

Given the notional FB-22 described, “we think you can reach out and
touch 98 to 99 percent of all required target sets for all the government
scenarios with this airplane,” Perrigo asserted.
To get to the 2015 initial operational capability, Lockheed envisions
starting production around 2011. There would be about an 18-month overlap
with production of the F/A-22.

The “baseline” avionics of the FB-22 would be the “Spiral 5” set of
improvements for the basic Raptor, which would include “the latest
generation radar, the side arrays, all the new things that the F/A-22 will
have,” Perrigo said.

“We feel it’s very achievable by 2015,” he said. “We feel very
comfortable saying that.”
Jumper cautioned that the Air Force really doesn’t know yet whether an
“FB-22-like thing,” as Roche described it, is the right way to go.

“Until we know what the material solutions are” that will be the
long-term answer to long-range strike, “then we don’t know how much of a
midterm solution we really need.”

He added, however, “I personally believe we’re going to need a
midterm solution. ... But how many of these, and when, we still have to be
able to work into our [budget planning] process.”